Is this better, Rep. Millar?

Since Rep. Fran Millar didn’t think it was appropriate to call out the names of the signers of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge from the House floor during the debate on HB 307, the new tax on hospitals. I thought posting the signers here would be more to his liking.

That bill passed by a vote of 141-23. We’ll soon see who violated their pledge to taxpayers.

Other tax and fee measures have also passed today as well, such as the Amazon tax, etc.

House Members

  • Amos Amerson (HD-9)
  • Timothy Bearden (HD-68)
  • J. Mark Burkhalter (HD-50)
  • John Mark Butler (HD-18)
  • Charlice Byrd (HD-20)
  • Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (HD-159)
  • David Casas (HD-103)
  • Jill Chambers (HD-81)
  • Mike Coan (HD-101)
  • Brooks Coleman (HD-97)
  • Sharon Cooper (HD-41)
  • Clay Cox (HD-102)
  • Steve Davis (HD-109)
  • Katie Dempsey (HD-13)
  • Matt Dollar (HD-45)
  • Melvin Everson (HD-106)
  • Bobby Franklin (HD-43)
  • Mark Hamilton (HD-23)
  • Ben Harbin (HD-118)
  • Michael Harden (HD-28)
  • John Mark Hatfield (HD-177)
  • Bill Hembree (HD-67)
  • Calvin Hill (HD-21)
  • Billy Horne (HD-71)
  • Penny Houston (HD-170)
  • Sheila Jones (HD-44)
  • Sean Jerguson (HD-22)
  • Jerry Keen (HD-179)
  • Barry Loudermilk (HD-14)
  • John Lunsford (HD-110)
  • Eugene T. Maddox (HD-172)
  • Judith Manning (HD-32)
  • Jeff May (HD-111)
  • Fran Millar (HD-79)
  • James Mills (HD-25)
  • Billy Mitchell (HD-88)
  • Larry O’Neal (HD-146)
  • Allan Peake (HD-137)
  • Alan Powell (HD-29)
  • David Ralston (HD-7)
  • Bobby Reese (HD-98)
  • Tom Rice (HD-51)
  • Carl Rogers (HD-26)
  • Ed Rynders (HD-152)
  • Martin Scott (HD-2), caucus chair
  • Donna Sheldon (HD-105)
  • Barbara Sims (HD-119)
  • Bob Smith (HD-113)
  • Len Walker (HD-107)
  • Mark Williams (HD-178)
  • John P. Yates (HD-73)

Senate Members

  • Ronnie Chance (SD-16)
  • Jeff Chapman (SD-3)
  • John Douglas (SD-17)
  • Greg Goggans (SD-7)
  • Johnny Grant (SD-25)
  • Lee Hawkins (SD-49)
  • Bill Heath (SD-31)
  • Judson Hill (SD-32)
  • Ralph T. Hudgens (SD-47)
  • Bill Jackson (SD-24)
  • Jack Murphy (SD-27)
  • Chip Rogers (SD-21), caucus chair
  • Mitch Seabaugh (SD-28)
  • Preston W. Smith (SD-52)
  • Cecil Staton (SD-18)
  • Renee S. Unterman (SD-45)
  • John J. Wiles (SD-37)
  • Tommie Williams (SD-19)


  1. HollyJ says:

    It looks like Buddy Carter had the chance to support it both as a state rep and a state senator! He must feel special!

  2. fran millar says:

    For 8 years I have tied to get my name off this list and the organization will not honor my request. I don’t believe this group is acting in good faith and that is why my comments from the well of the House.

  3. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Amazon is a tax-free zone here in GA that saves consumers a lot of money. The Republican legislature wants to end that. I guess a tax creation doesn’t qualify as a tax increase.

    How do these things fly under the radar?

    • macho says:

      I’m for low taxes, but also equitable taxes. Why would you give an out-of-state, internet company a competitive tax advantage over a local company, that contributes to the GA economy.

      • Jawgadude says:

        In 2 other states where they went after Internet sales taxes, Amazon and other inline merchants immediate;y fired all of their affiliates in those states. There are 10,000’s of Internet affiliates here in Georgia – many are stay at home moms or folks with medical problems who do affiliate work from home. If this passes all of these people will probably lose their small businesses – and the state will lose incomes taxes on all of this lost income.

        • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

          I have heard from Rep. Loudermilk today that there was a lot of funny business that went on yesterday. He was across the hall in the Senate chambers when the internet tax was being voted on, and someone voted his machine as a yes. Of course, he changed it in the official record, as he has been working against every tax increase, and that one in particular. I am not sure why someone would want to submarine a good, honest, principled conservative like that. My guess is that they are tired of a group of them voting what they believe and not being strong-armed or threatened into voting with leadership.

          I really thought we were better than that. I thought under Ralston all of this funny business was over and there was a new tone in the house. Georgia’s Republicans don’t really want to vote as conservatives, and Rep. Millar stood up and said he disagrees with a pledge to not raise taxes! I don’t really get it.

          In any case, it needs to be said that nothing has really changed down there, and we need to hold these people’s feet to the fire on actually being conservative. They don’t think people will remember that they have lied to us about their principles just to get elected, but I think a lot of people are paying attention to their hypocrisy.

  4. Harry says:

    I hope the tea party movement will take the lead in the upcoming primaries and general election to defeat the GOP tax-and-spend element. The only way they will pay attention is the threat of or reality of defeat.

    I certainly don’t advocate voting for Democrats, but just simply let the Democrat win by default – and in doing so we can slowly rid the GOP of the poison apples. The Democrats are always good at making unpopular policies and running things into the ground, and meanwhile the GOP can live to fight another day with more honest and non-hypocritical politicians who will lower and not raise taxes and seek to lessen the power of tyrannical government.

    • macho says:

      I hope they try to take care of things in the Primary. Fortunately, in GA, there are runoffs, but this attitude on a national level will ensure Obama wins reelection with 45% of the vote; a la Ross Perot.

      While some in the GOP, may not live up to our Conservative standards, I’d take most of them over Obama any day. To my knowledge, none of the GOP Presidential candidates would have taken over our private healthcare system or rewrite mortgage contracts.

      • Harry says:

        Many of us have come to the belief that “our” politicians who sell out to special interests are just as bad as “their” politicians who sell out to special interests. They’re all whores, no matter what special they represent. In regard to the specific topic presented by this topic, many of our GOP politicians have sold out to protect the profits of the hospital industry and maintain the welfare lobby in this state, at the expense of the patient. In such efforts to maintain inefficient and inequitable special interests, the rest of us of us have to pay and suffer the injustice of sacrificing for the benefit of millionaire hospital executives and their lobbyists, and welfare queens popping out babies for free, which end up being supported by the rest of us for generations.

        That’s what I’m talking about.

        • Harry says:

          Many of us are at the point of saying, we will no longer participate in the charade of supporting hypocrites who don’t stand by their promises, and sell us out thinking that we have no other option other than to vote for them. Sorry, they’re about to learn that their little game is all played out.

          This hospital tax issue will not stay under the radar as they wish it would. I’ll personally do everything I can to assure that it bites them in the tail. They are whores and hypocrites.

          • Harry says:

            Correction, I meant to say hospital patient tax, not hospital tax. Just like telephone companies pass on the Gore tax, the hospitals will bill the tax directly to the paying patients, and their bottom line is enhanced because they don’t have to do the hard thing and tell the indigents, sponges and deadbeats to go to the free clinic; but rather get to pick up the Medicaid reimbursements at the expense of the paying patients.

  5. ByteMe says:

    Anyone who thinks that the revenue side of government is sacrosanct and can never be allowed to be adjusted upward regardless of external circumstances needs to grow up, get out of their mother’s basement, and join the real world where even companies can raise prices.

      • ByteMe says:

        Government is eating more of the GDP, because GDP of the private sector continues to shrink through deleveraging. Without government spending, GDP turns strongly negative and the dreaded deflation kicks in. Try again.

          • ByteMe says:

            Try going back to the 1980’s when we started this binge of debt-driven growth aided by a minimum of $250 billion per year of government spending that was created entirely by borrowing. The borrowing binge slowed in the late 1990’s and then sped up again over the past 10 years.

            But that’s how we got here, not how we go forward in an environment where both public sector needs to deleverage, the private sector is strongly deleveraging, and exports are not able to drive the economy into positive territory. You can’t deleverage both public and private sectors AND not have sufficient exports… because you end up with deflation. It’s one of those immutable accounting rules.

          • B Balz says:

            It goes back to 1976, and probably further.

            Byte, you fail to realize, or choose not to understand, that eery dollar consumed by the Feds is one less dollar consumed by the private sector.

            Gov’t never sleeps, takes a day off and is able to slowly do only one thing; GROW. Sucking free enterprise dry.

            • ByteMe says:

              That assumes a closed economy where money cannot be created elsewhere and used to purchase goods from here. #FAIL. Try again.

              • B Balz says:

                Since I don’t have francs at my disposal, nor do the French buy from me, with their dollars, your argument is kinda weak.

                International trade is just that, arbitrage. A weak dollar means we cannot buy over there. They can buy here, but at lower prices.

                Globalism doesn’t change the matrix, if the US government is buying up stuff, my company cannot.

                Of curse, if I took on your position, you would disagree.

                Peace out, dude, going outside to play!

                • ByteMe says:

                  Actually, a weak dollar increases our exports, which is good (and very necessary right now) for us.

                  If any entity is buying up stuff, provided the stuff is not a limited commodity, then more stuff can get created and the resulting increase in production often leads to lower prices. Example would be hammers. The US Military bought hundreds of them for $94 so the rest of us could get them at Home Depot for $6.95. 🙂

                  I recommend you try to take on my position and see if you can defend it. It’s a good mental exercise sometimes to do that to understand where the flaws are in your own arguments. In this case, your flaw is one of only seeing as far as the horizon and thinking there’s nothing past there. We do not live in a closed economy. There are lots of people out there not only willing and able to buy things from us, but also to create more demand than the US Government is supposedly consuming.

                  Our economy is running about $10 trillion of GDP right now and the government is running about $3 T of it. That’s big, but certainly not sucking the lifeblood out of the other 70% of the economy.

                  • B Balz says:

                    Good points all, and you essentially verified what I thought correct.

                    Back in 1976 the US gov’t was consuming about 25% of GDP. Increase of 5% of total US GDP in 30 years is a hard trend to conceive in terms of vast importance. It is a continuing shift that is not good.

                    What do we call economies where the largest demand is from the government?

                    In classic terms, if we can produce a total of 1 million tons of steel, and the US needs 30 million tons, the private sector is able to use 70 tons.

                    Price goes up as supply to the private sector is down.

                    Are you suggesting the World market will sell below the current market value in the private sector?

                    I disagree that increased government demand is good for the private sector. Your argument sounds Keynesian? to me.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      China does indeed sell steel at below actual cost, because they have the assets and inventory and need to make something (anything) on it in order to keep the plants operating, the people coming to work, the social fabric from tearing.

                      As to your “classic terms” example, you would be correct IF the private sector needed more than 70 tons and supply was not available, then yes we’d have a problem. But that’s not really what’s happening.

                      It’s 30% this year, but was running a bunch less than that 2 years ago before the economy tanked. I think we’re doing fine on that front, but I’d still like to see the state do a better job.

                      As for the last, yes, Keynes is the one who said that when the private sector is not buying, government should become the buyer of last resort to keep the economy from completing tanking. He also said that once private demand returned, that the government needed to get out. People forget about that last part when trashing Keynes.

        • Provocateur says:

          Deleveraging means to unload debt and risk…which adds to stronger balance sheets. Not really sure of your connection there between deleveraging and a shrinking GDP, Byte.

          • ByteMe says:

            Let me see if I can explain then.

            Let’s say you as an individual have credit card bills totaling $20K. You want to pay those down, but you don’t make more money each week, so what you have to do is stop purchasing products in order to pay down your debt. When you purchase a product, the money goes to a store, where it can then pay employees, who then can go out and spend it again The speed at which that money changes hands is called “the velocity of money” and is one of the two components of the GDP equation (the other is the size of the money supply).

            When you pay off debt, the money goes to the bank. Now banks used to turn around and loan that money out as fast as they could. But they can’t, because they are in the same process of massively writing down their bad loans and raising as much cash as possible to make sure they don’t get shut down by the FDIC for not having sufficient assets to back their loans. So the money isn’t moving at all in this direction and that’s a drag on GDP (because the velocity of money has fallen).

            BTW, deleveraging doesn’t just mean “unloading debt”, it can also meaning “paying it off” or “raising cash to improve your asset to debt ratio”.

            So that’s the private sector, which is about 70% of our GDP. The public sector is taking up some of the slack by increasing its debt and doing stimulus bills that are funding projects and keeping some people employed. The only way for the government to pay down its debt is to increase taxes to the point where the inflow is greater than the outflow (sorry, anti-tax guys, even if you wipe out every dollar of discretionary spending, you don’t get to inflow greater than outflow with the current tax rates AND you then have to further increase outflow to cover unemployment rates). So when the government increases tax rates and deleverages by paying off bold holders — a lot of whom are other countries and overseas investors — it will cause a slowdown in velocity as well.

            Does that help clear things up?

            • Provocateur says:

              Wow. It clears things up very well. Appreciate the economics lesson, and a review of the velocity of money.

            • ByteMe says:

              Hmm.. near the end, that should have been “paying off bond holders….

              To go to the next step, if both public and private sectors are paying down debt instead of buying stuff, what can increase the velocity of money?

              Exports. GDP is is typically measured using the purchases of imports and the sale of exports (along with internal sales) and we’ve cut imports and internal sales quite a bit lately, but exports are where we can increase the velocity of money… but only if our exports are affordable.

              Enter the exchange rate, which has decreased the value of the dollar, making our exports more affordable to any other country where their currency floats freely against our currency (which excludes China).

              And that’s where I start to get a headache. 🙂

    • hewhoone says:

      Taxes are collected at the point of a gun. Consumers choose whether to buy a product based on the price. (Except for healthcare now.) Ignoring this difference may be common in the liberal world where you grew up but until Coca Cola has the ability to seize my home your comparison seems childish.

      Georgia’s budget problem is caused by a lack of fiscal discipline, not a lack of sufficient revenues.

      • ByteMe says:

        Let me know when the tax man shows up at your door with a gun. Could it be a form of paranoia that’s common in the “conservative” world where you grew up?

        • B Balz says:

          Gladly, my only experience with GA DOR, Enforcement Division was a random meeting at Moe’s and Joe’s. After several sudsy beverages, their ‘war stories’ might make you reconsider, my lib’ral neighbor.

          NOTE: I could not have paid a $400 p/hr tax lawyer for better info, than my modest, yet sudsy, investment on these gentlemen.

          • ByteMe says:

            Again: they never show up at my door or the doors of my neighbors? Why do you think that is?

            Could it be because we believe that taxes are the price we pay to live in this great country and so we do it knowing that it’s better than the available alternatives?

            • B Balz says:

              You like paying, don’t ya? Since the GOP spend and spend program failed, you will now get your wish. Enjoy.

              • ByteMe says:

                We’re all going to get my wish in that we will hopefully someday soon start taxing for the amount that we’re spending.

                I don’t want taxes or spending to increase without end, but I’m sick of fools who complain about taxes being too high, but refuse to acknowledge the obvious about our social contracts and our need for government to perform certain activities and our inability to properly fund those contracts and activities without adequate taxation levels.

                So why are graduation rates and test scores higher in states where the taxation rates are higher? Must be Satan.

                • B Balz says:

                  Fair Tax is not all that, I am for Fair Spending. Without a balance budget, we are arguing semantics on tax, Fair or IRS.

                  Better students are a result of smarter parents, so if you are saying smarter people pay more in taxes, then I am scratching my head.

                  We have a different philosophy with more in common than not.

  6. Joshua Culling says:

    The Pledge, as Jason has stated above, remains binding for the entirety of an official’s term in the office for which he signed.

    Rep. Millar contacted us last year and asked to be removed from the list of Pledge signers. ATR merely administers the Pledge, as it is a promise to constituents not to raise their taxes. If a politician chooses to no longer honor his/her Pledge, we are more than happy to help them inform their constituents, which we have done in the past.

    In Rep. Millar’s case, we literally offered to help organize a press conference for him to publicly denounce the Pledge. He declined.

    It is always unfortunate when a politician makes a promise to his/her constituents when it is politically expedient, but breaks that trust at the slightest sign of discomfort. Raising taxes is what politicians like Rep. Millar do in lieu of governing.

  7. LibertyFetish says:

    paying nearly half our income is better than the alternative of a limited government? I think not. The gun is, generally, a metaphor. Sometimes instead of a gun, the feds will use other forms of coercion. For instance, freezing your assets so you can’t even hire an attorney. Some people would prefer a gun than what the feds put people and their families through.

    • ByteMe says:

      You would be a perfect fool if you pay half your income in taxes. I’m spending maybe about 15-20% tops and I’m what’s sometimes considered the upper end of “middle class”. And no one here would ever think I was “perfect” (a fool, most probably).

      Maybe you think the top rate of 35% applies to all of your income? Don’t know, can’t explain it, but maybe you should look at your tax returns to figure out what you’re really paying, because that 50% number is junk math.

      • Harry says:

        I think he is speaking of the total tax byte – income tax (federal and state), car tax, gas tax, tire tax, property tax, sales tax, phone tax, cigarette tax, airport tax, and various penalties and fees that are hidden tax. If you’re wealthy, to that list you can add higher brackets, disappearing tax deductions credits and exemptions, nanny tax, gift and estate tax.

        • ByteMe says:

          Yes, I was talking about what’s on my tax return, but total tax is certainly NOT another 30+ % higher. No way, no how. You can’t make up numbers like that and expect anyone to take you seriously.

            • ByteMe says:

              Sigh. Harry, quit making things up. SS is not 30% and there is no “ObamaCareTax” for 2 more years and it’s only 2% more than what’s being paid now for people who make more than $200K.

                • ByteMe says:

                  I’ll go with the Christian Science Monitor for this one, since they’re not exactly left-leaning:


                  If you are an individual making more than $200,000 a year, or a married couple making more than $250,000 a year, get ready to pay more for your Medicare if health care reform passes.

                  First of all, your Medicare Part A (that’s hospital insurance) tax rate would be increased by 0.9 percent, to 2.35 percent. Second, the bill creates an entirely new tax of 3.8 percent on unearned income (dividends, interest, stuff like that) for people in those same income brackets.

                  The good news is that this would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013. And it is a big money raiser, truth be told. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this would bring in $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.

                  So people making more than $200K will pay about an additional 1% on employment income and 4% on passive income, which won’t affect the bulk of us that much (it will affect the money-changers in the temple of Wall Street, though).

                  I do stand corrected, thanks for challenging that.

                  • Harry says:

                    What about the increased insurance premiums to everyone due to insurance companies not being able to be discriminating in the choice of their insured? They’ll be forced to include bad lifestyle choices with the rest of us.

                    A lot of big companies are already planning massive layoffs of US personnel in order to cover the additional cost.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Harry, quit changing the topic, which is the mythical 50% tax rate.

                      As for your question, you really should do the research on the people who don’t get insurance right now and their health relative to people who have insurance. You know that most company health insurance policies currently accept all employees regardless of pre-existing conditions, right? Even my little two-person company was able to get a health policy with no pre-existing conditions.

                      As for your “the sky is falling” argument, let’s get some reality. Haven’t companies been doing “massive layoffs of US personnel” for the past year and a half before health care was passed and THREE YEARS before the mandate is in place? #FAIL.

                    • Harry says:

                      I’m not changing the topic. When you add in all these unfunded mandates on individuals and their employers, we’re at 50% if not more!

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Again: no, we’re not. Please provide numbers to back up your 50% claim instead of just vague assertions.

                    • Harry says:

                      For the “average” American:

                      fed income tax – 25%
                      state income tax – 6%
                      payroll tax – 8%
                      real property tax – 5%
                      car tax – 1%
                      sales tax – 3%
                      gas tax, tire tax – 3%
                      air travel tax – 1%
                      other tax – ?

                      There you are…and to that you can add the unfunded mandates of Obamacare.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Your blogger is wrong. Like I said, my ACTUAL (as opposed to the numbers listed in the tables) tax rate is between 15 and 20% for Fed + State. My car tax is about .01%. My real property tax for our house runs about 2%. Maybe he’s thinking of a different state with a different set of property/car/state taxes AND the person makes over $500K so that a good-sized portion of the income is taxed at 35%.

                      Total #FAIL for your source.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      So Harry, look at your tax returns, and take the taxes less credits (Fed + State) and divide by your adjusted gross income. Let us know if you’re paying 25% or if it’s less. And that’ll still be less than the number you posted from that blog.

                  • Republican Lady says:


                    As I have told you before, my area of expertise is not finance, insurance, or taxes so tell me if I am wrong.

                    Aren’t some of the taxes we pay counted as deductions on the federal and state income tax returns? Like property tax and ad valorum tax to name a couple? If so, then we can’t count those taxes if they are cancelled out in deductions, can we?

                    My accountant handles filing my income taxes but that seems to be the case as I recall.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      For the purpose of my example, I EXCLUDED all non-business-related deductions, since those tend to be less related to income and more related to how you earn your income and how well you know (or your accountant knows) and use the tax code. Had I included deductions, my actual tax rate is probably another 5 points lower.

                      Because all Fed tax rate is indexed, you don’t pay the top rate on 100% of your income. So people who come here throwing around that they pay 50% taxes on their income can’t prove it (based on the strong likelihood that we don’t have any people who make over $1 M per year out here).

                    • Republican Lady says:

                      Oh, I see I wasn’t clear. I was talking about Harry’s example where he listed nine different taxes. What you said makes sense to me but his listing didn’t seem accurate somehow.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      I called him on it as well, but he’s been silent since, so I can’t speak to whether he can back up his claim.

                    • Republican Lady says:

                      I depend on you Byte for all things financial, and from reading the posts on here, so does Polisavvy, so don’t go anywhere.

  8. hewhoone says:

    Byte, your quixotic attempt to rationalize an irrational philosophy (liberalism) is amusing and instructive. I am glad to see that at least the conservatives here on PP understand there is a difference between tax collections and the free exchange of goods.

    I would gladly accept your challenge to “take on my position and see if you can defend it” if I could figure out what position you are talking about.

    • ByteMe says:

      Sorry that you really aren’t up to speed on economics, hew. Good to know that “conservatives here on PP” understand the difference between tax collections and free exchange of goods even if they don’t understand economics and how money truly flows in the economy and what drives GDP.

      • Provocateur says:

        Soundbytes, Byte. “conservatives here on PP” only know how to listen to Rush and Sean Hannity for their daily dose of soundbytes to regurgitate on blogs like this one.

      • hewhoone says:

        Byte, I find your arrogance more humorous than intimidating. I ask again, what exactly is your position?

        • ByteMe says:

          Well, since you’re trying to interject yourself into a conversation between BB and myself, the point he put forth:

          Byte, you fail to realize, or choose not to understand, that eery dollar consumed by the Feds is one less dollar consumed by the private sector.

          That said is only true in a closed economy, which we definitely do not have.

          Now have at it.

          P.S.: What you think is arrogance is totally impatience and boredom.

          • hewhoone says:

            Byte, forgive me for interjecting in your “conversation between BB and myself”.

            My tiny conservative mind didn’t understand that a post in the comments section of a public blog is not an invitation for discourse.

            Thank you for finally clarifying your original point and I do actually have some thoughts on the subject but now I am just too impatient and bored to waste any more time on this thread.

            P.S. Your treatment of conservative posters on this blog is consistently arrogant regardless of the causes.

            • ByteMe says:

              🙄 Then don’t respond to me. Mark my comments as “ignore” in your settings. And then our paths will never cross and you won’t have to feel anything about my posts.

  9. John Konop says:

    At the end of the day grown-ups know they have to pay the bills. Tax cuts without proper spending cuts is not conservative it is irresponsible. And some of you scream about any tax increases and user fees for services yet have no solution as how to pay for the service.

    • Harry says:

      John, speaking for myself, spending cuts have to happen, then tax cuts can follow. As we see, Karen Handel was able to cut what, 20% out of the SOS budget. Such cuts can be made across the boards in government. So let’s work to reduce the scope and inefficiencies, and thus hopefully be able to reduce taxes when possible, but meanwhile I don’t think a new hospital tax taken out of the pockets of paying patients in order to foot the unpaid bills of indigents and deadbeats, is in order.

      As an aside, I have read that Georgia has one of the highest ratios of state employees to total population in this region, if not the entire country.

      • ByteMe says:

        Two things, Harry. I agree that spending cuts should ALWAYS come first and would have saved us a mound of headaches if that had happened at the Fed level. I also read (and I gotta find that source again) that Georgia is 49th in the per-capita tax burden for the country.

      • John Konop says:


        I agree and have proposed many spending cuts. Yet at the end of the day we must pay out bills. And I se no way out without raising fees and or taxes combined with cuts. As you know I warned about this problem year ago and was call ‘chicken little”!

        The problem is we needed to make the cuts years ago and now it is too late. We can focus on what should have been or solve the problem.

        And taking put shots at Fran Miller is wrong. We I ran for office I saw Fran speak right after I did and give a similar warning speech when I did about how the day of reckoning would come with the irresponsible spending and future liabilities. He was extremely critical of the budget and warned a GOP crowd about this issue and the party.

        Fran now has the guts to step up and fix the problem while many stood by and said and did nothing. And I realize you were not in the crowd of not questioning the irresponsible behavior.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Being a fiscal conservatism, and being fiscally responsible, are two entirely different concepts!

  10. rugby says:

    Jason you’ve set a new record for intellectual dishonesty in this thread for Peach Pundit. And that is quite the accomplishment.

Comments are closed.